Extended FAQs – Twin Oaks Decision Making

This is the second in a series of extensions to the FAQs found on the TwinOaks.Org website. Members, ex-members and other informed folks are encouraged to send corrections or alternative interpretations of my extensions as well as of the official FAQs themselves.

Here is what the website says about our decision making system:

Our decision-making model is based on the Walden Two Planner-Manager system combined with our egalitarian values. Managers are responsible for the day-to-day decisions for their area. For community-wide decisions and larger issues, the Planners (3 rotating members) make decisions by looking at our bylaws and policies, and by soliciting community input by posting papers for comment, holding community meetings, putting out surveys, talking with members (especially members that are closely involved in the issue or have strong feelings), etc. They don’t make decisions based on their personal preference, but rather by gathering information and determining the larger will of the community on a given issue. Any member can appeal a Planner decision they feel is unfair, although this rarely happens as Planners generally do a pretty good job at considering all the aspects of a given issue.

The community as a whole does not use consensus for making decisions, but some decision-making bodies within the community use consensus to make their decisions (e.g. the Membership Team). In keeping with our egalitarian values, we all have a voice in making the decisions about how to spend our collective money and labor during each year’s economic planning. The Managers and Planners put out their proposed economic plan, and each member can alter the plan according to their values and preferences (e.g. I can cut the office budget, and shift that money/labor to the garden budget instead, if I want). Once every member who wants to has done this, the Planners synthesize everyone’s changes to create the final budget.

Decision making at Twin Oaks is complex and the origin of this complexity (in my opinion) is the noble notion that we can do better than have a simple majority win.

The founders of the community thought they could improve on voting. They wanted a system which revised proposals, even if they would win a simple vote, so that they could take care of minority voices in the community. But because there were not (in 1967) good secular models of consensus process, they decided to roll their own and create a whole new group decision making structure. Key to this structure is our own unusual internal communication system.

Every community has an internal communication system, and almost all of them are verbal. The group gets together some number of times each week and discusses what needs to happen and who is going to do it.

Twin Oaks was founded by writers. We have a written communication culture. I don’t know of any other community that does it this way. It has several advantages and some disadvantages as well.

The principal advantage is we avoid the “sloppy majority effect”. If you are making a proposal and you have general support for it, but there are people with concerns about it, you cannot just force it through as a simple vote would. If there are reasonable ways you can take care of the minority by modifying your proposal, the expectation is you will try to find these and amend your proposal.

This is why the O&I board is more powerful than a meeting format for proposal reworking. The O&I board is a collection of 24 clipboards on which people post proposals for changes in our policy and decisions. These clipboards are stocked with extra blank paper at the ends so that there is room for people to add their thoughts (and so they feel like the authors of the proposal are inviting them to do so). Ideally, critics voice their concerns, make constructive suggestions, and these amendments get reviewed and integrated in part or in totality to the new version of the proposal. The problem comes when the comments are not constructive or not easily folded into the existing proposal. This is especially problematic when a vocal minority wants the proposal not to go forward at all or has a significantly different alternative they would like to advance.

How are we getting there?

These contentious proposals test our decision making system and demonstrate both its flexibility and its hazards. The person who posts the proposal has several different options when they get complex or contradictory feedback on what they have submitted. The first and easiest option is they can simply drop the idea. This happens with some regularity. Many folks proposing things, however, have a vested interest in the improvements they have suggested, so they will typically go one of several routes:

re-write the proposal to include new suggestions

call a community meeting to discuss the proposal (this is rare)

do a survey of member’s attitudes on this topic (also rare)

consult with other area managers or the planners

It’s a complex process and can proceed at a glacial pace, but some proposals do pass and it works well enough at Twin Oaks.

Because of my interest in living in community, I have been directed to take a look at Twin Oaks and Acorn. It’s been interesting and oftentimes very different from what I have been part of and wish to be part of in the future. For example, I have a disability, and many other people I am close to do as well. We would, if we designed a community together, build a community that was tolerant of multiple abilities and disabilities. In a very significant way, we are seeking shelter from the storm. That often means staying connected with the systems of welfare that come along with capitalism, or outside work. For example, due to disability, some people can only do specific types of work, and these types of work may not be called for by the community. Some people may have difficulty communicating due to autism. I think following from this quite directly, we also would prize a multigenerational community. As a person with a physical disability, my ability to do physical work is limited, but I have value still; yet when I look at Twin Oaks I realize I am more valued within capitalism than I would be at TO, even though my value within capitalism is not high at all. But as an artist, I can make money. I get to lie back with my computer every day, which keeps me from becoming exhausted. I take pleasure in TV and video games. I can use social media to stay connected even if i can’t go to a friend’s house. In many ways, I feel like the community I am seeking to build is a little closer to cohousing, yet it would not be for the wealthy. IT would be a way to live better within capitalism but without giving up on the connections, technology, and conventions that many of us need. For example, let’s say I could only ride a bike over longer distances– too disabled to walk that far. But I must use a community bike, and then it is not there when I come back out of the building. Then I cannot leave. Perhaps I could get special permission for what I need– my own bike to ride or whatever. But in my current situation I do not need permission to accommodate my physical requirements. So what is better? Anyway, i spearheaded the creation of a cooperative house that leads with the values i/we have identified as valuable to us. To grow from that point could entail new challenges. And that’s why I look to this, to see what those might be and how others have responded.

Yes indeed– Innsefree and Camphill are primarily for people with intellectual disabilities. I am very pleased that they exist. Also, you are right that they are not what I am looking for– for a variety of reasons, the greatest of course being that I am not intellectually disabled. What interests me is not special communities for the disabled. It’s multi-ability communities for people in general; with a disability rights lens applied to daily life, community functioning, etc.

I assume you are attending the conference you mentioned? If so, I encourage you to promote the idea of integrating people with disabilities into all communities. Creating separate communities for disabled people is a concept I don’t quite grasp. Do you want us to go somewhere else? In this case, again, mainstream society would be succeeding in valuing us and integrating us more than intentional communities. I think that should give pause.

In any case, I’m always open to talking further. I like to see where my ideas sit within the various frameworks that already exist. And also, don’t think that I’m ignorant of the many issues that intentional communities like Acorn and Twin Oaks have to contend with– I’m reasonably familiar, for an outsider. Many of these issues would have implications in terms of welcoming people with disabilities. Yet that’s always been at the center of disability rights work– the limits of possibility. Over time, as a society, we’ve expanded those limits, and incorporated the costs of being inclusive without bankrupting our public systems. So I think there’s reason to always really push and ask ‘why not?’

Thanks for reading. Also, you can say “disabled people” or “people with disabilities.” There is no need to euphamize. It is not insulting to say ‘disabled.’

Hi there! I’m interested to hear more about the cohousing project you’ve been a part of, and any other resources or thoughts you might be interested to share about intentional community and disability. I am currently working with some chronic healthand ability stuff, and am also interested in joining or starting an intentional community in the future, and was thinking about similar things you have brought up when browsing through the info I found about Twin Oaks.